Postby king achilles on Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:31 pmApparently, ES has got some real life stuff to attend to so I will close this case instead.

After further ...

24 hours/day for as long as you want, nor is it for people who will intentionally not take their turns so that their account sitter or clan mate can take the turn for them.

It is not a 24/7 responsibility of anyone to look after the games of their friends or clan mates as this can be seen as account sharing where more than one person is already freely logging in to one account whenever these people want to.

You can only....

For your own good, please do take note of this:

Nicky15 wrote:Howdy folks.

Until we get some sort of sitting feature, we feel we have no choice but to bring in some Clan Sitting Rules. We are aware that this may cause a stir. But please ...

Ok The Rules

What has to happen.

...

2, Emergency cover may only be given if the person really is in danger of missing a turn. Therefore a turn can only be covered if there is an hour or less left on the clock. But steps must be taken to contact the player before hand.

...

The CD team.

Maybe i am missing something, but i see a huge confliction in between two approaches. I m not speaking of cases, consequences, however speaking of mainlines, approaches.At one side we have got KA bringing red highlighted part, that is telling (it is how i see it, maybe i m interpreting this wrong and if so correct me pls) no matter we see our clan mate is close to miss a turn or not, let him/her miss it. Since we will not have the pw of player, since we should not have the pw as rule/s states, then we never will be able to cover turns cos we are not informed to sit by the player who is about to miss the turn...

If so, then what is it in green highlighted section ? How are we going to be sitting to cover emergencies ? Since we will not have passwords, then how are we going to cover turns in danger of missing ? Cos those turns in danger of missing happens not planned, due to urgencies, unplanned, so player didnt know he needed a sitter then didnt send a pw to sitter, didnt ask sitter to sit and so...

I see a major difference in two approaches here, want to share with community and want to see if i am missing something...Which one is correctt ?With all my respect,HA.

hey hey my my, rock and roll can never die, there is more to the picture, than meets the eyeplaying games with me ? smells like meeting the death...

Funkyterrance wrote:I am equally disgruntled with the state of affairs.The fat bloated clans with the do-or-die stance towards wars, rule-bending, etc. need to unwrap their egos from their online gaming experience. There are certain clans out there that I have much respect for due to their skills combined with integrity. For example: The Pack. I have had the privilege of playing with some of these guys and they are stand-up players. This was way back when I started playing and I was looking for a clan. I played with their leaders and they were not sketchy a bit and I am pretty critical of this sort of thing lol. Nobody told me what to do, we discussed. I'm not meaning to go off on a tangent, just want to make it clear that I'm not irrationally and randomly attacking the more competitive clans, just the ones who smell fishy. It's pretty obvious to someone not completely wrapped up in their clan standing who is dirty and who is not. I don't trust the bloated fatty clans, they didn't get that way playing the straight and narrow. I can't see any other way to make them change than by force since they are obviously blinded by the ambition to win wars.

i had the opposite experience with them.

they were constantly logging into my account to take turns when i was online. it got so bad i changed my password and did not inform them so they refused to use me in any more games.

Well you know greenoaks it got to the point that the people in the pack didn't want to play with you because you had time to post in the forums but no time to discuss your turns or even play them!

Example:Game 8374967 2011-02-28 16:43:15 - greenoaks missed a turnGame 8639756 2011-03-19 20:21:37 - greenoaks ran out of time (not paying attention in a war game and not ending his turn)Game 8634025 2011-03-14 12:17:20 - greenoaks missed a turn

HardAttack wrote:Maybe i am missing something, but i see a huge confliction in between two approaches. I m not speaking of cases, consequences, however speaking of mainlines, approaches.At one side we have got KA bringing red highlighted part, that is telling (it is how i see it, maybe i m interpreting this wrong and if so correct me pls) no matter we see our clan mate is close to miss a turn or not, let him/her miss it. Since we will not have the pw of player, since we should not have the pw as rule/s states, then we never will be able to cover turns cos we are not informed to sit by the player who is about to miss the turn...

If so, then what is it in green highlighted section ? How are we going to be sitting to cover emergencies ? Since we will not have passwords, then how are we going to cover turns in danger of missing ? Cos those turns in danger of missing happens not planned, due to urgencies, unplanned, so player didnt know he needed a sitter then didnt send a pw to sitter, didnt ask sitter to sit and so...

I see a major difference in two approaches here, want to share with community and want to see if i am missing something...Which one is correctt ?With all my respect,HA.

I think this is a very good point but I think that the admins are trying come up with something, anything that will work in the meantime while they formulate a more long term solution. I agree though that there is something of a contradiction in the two statements. The thing is the first statement was made some time ago and the second was made in light of recent events so it's not entirely fair to put them in the same context. I would say that for now the second one is the one you can go by but that's just me.

Well done, CD's. Thank you for taking the initiative and policing the clan world. These rules are simple and easy to follow. You have EMPIRE's commitment to continue to conduct ourselves in a respectable manner and adhere happily to these guidelines.

OK, I hate it when people do this but tl;dr ... at least not the last few pages. But if what was included up to page 14 is any indication it seems people are starting to repeat themselves. I have a couple of thoughts, which also are somewhat repeats of what's been said.

First, the 1 hour rule should probably be expanded, but at the very least there need to be exceptions. Exception 1: An emergency in which the sitter has been informed that turns need to be taken should be treated the same as any pre-arranged absence. Exception 2: Once a player comes within the 1 hour rule and after efforts have been made to contact that player, sitting should be permitted at the minimum levels necessary to ensure no missed turns. If only one player has their password and that player is going to bed, this means they could clear 8 hours or so. Exception 3: After a player has missed a turn, he is considered in a state of emergency and the other exceptions apply. Exception 4: Other exceptions handled on a case-by-case basis, e.g., Goranz' posts about being in a different timezone.

Just thought of this: change "vacation" or whatever it says now to "prearranged absence, e.g., vacation"

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that I can't play some other turns while I'm away. Sometimes, as a favor to my sitter, I try to clear the easy turns or the turns in games that are already decided to decrease the sitter's gameload. I understand how this could be abused, so I get why the rule is as it is, but I'm not terribly happy about not being able to help my sitter out while he's helping me.

Last thought is that people seem to be forgetting that these rules apply to clan wars only. It's not going to get you a C&A post (I would hope) if you break these rules. It's not going to affect how you sit for clanmates (or others) in non-clan games.

Oh and I would also like to point out that the whole "all top clans do such-and-such" doesn't seem to be true. The takeaway that I got from reading posts from people in "top clans" is that most of them do things differently, but generally try to be honest and fair. It will be nice to standardize these things, though, so everyone is on the same page.

not sure what motivated the need for these rules, but i presume it was a minority of individuals finding loopholes on an ongoing basis; that should be the focus for any rule - limit cheating. all these "what if ... " situations are a distraction to the the real conversation to be had: how to prevent whatever motivated these "new" rules in the first place.

exceptional situations will always happen ... if they keep happening, they aren't exceptional, or the rules need to be revisited.

greenoaks wrote:the cheating was so rampant that my flag was changing midturn

LOL you even had to to watch your flag change (which I highly doubt happened) but not take your turns?

midturn, do you understand the word. i'm in games and being told they are foeing me because my flag is changing while we are playing.

the Pack were what many of us here hate. 3 or 4 players playing all games themselves or through puppet accounts.

Greenoaks, I have been with the clan since the beginning...I have never taken anyone's turn unless 1. I was asked to sit their account or 2. it was under an hour and I couldn't get a hold of them. And that goes the same for them taking my turn!

agentcom wrote:OK, I hate it when people do this but tl;dr ... at least not the last few pages. But if what was included up to page 14 is any indication it seems people are starting to repeat themselves. I have a couple of thoughts, which also are somewhat repeats of what's been said.

First, the 1 hour rule should probably be expanded, but at the very least there need to be exceptions. Exception 1: An emergency in which the sitter has been informed that turns need to be taken should be treated the same as any pre-arranged absence. Exception 2: Once a player comes within the 1 hour rule and after efforts have been made to contact that player, sitting should be permitted at the minimum levels necessary to ensure no missed turns. If only one player has their password and that player is going to bed, this means they could clear 8 hours or so. Exception 3: After a player has missed a turn, he is considered in a state of emergency and the other exceptions apply. Exception 4: Other exceptions handled on a case-by-case basis, e.g., Goranz' posts about being in a different timezone.

Just thought of this: change "vacation" or whatever it says now to "prearranged absence, e.g., vacation"

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that I can't play some other turns while I'm away. Sometimes, as a favor to my sitter, I try to clear the easy turns or the turns in games that are already decided to decrease the sitter's gameload. I understand how this could be abused, so I get why the rule is as it is, but I'm not terribly happy about not being able to help my sitter out while he's helping me.

Last thought is that people seem to be forgetting that these rules apply to clan wars only. It's not going to get you a C&A post (I would hope) if you break these rules. It's not going to affect how you sit for clanmates (or others) in non-clan games.

Oh and I would also like to point out that the whole "all top clans do such-and-such" doesn't seem to be true. The takeaway that I got from reading posts from people in "top clans" is that most of them do things differently, but generally try to be honest and fair. It will be nice to standardize these things, though, so everyone is on the same page.

Having clan mate's pw, is it right or wrong ? A clan mate well very probably can play clan games, and non-clan games as well. According to your lines, since non-clan games are going to be dealt in CA, but guess what, say some clan ppl has the pw for emergencies in clan war games and this pw, having it becomes a rule violation when it is non-clan game/s. So, are we going to ask ppl in clans not to play non-clan games ? If we are gonna allow clan players to play non-clan war games, then how are we gonna have their pw to sit to cover emergincies in clan war games ? Since having pw is rule violation it says...

hey hey my my, rock and roll can never die, there is more to the picture, than meets the eyeplaying games with me ? smells like meeting the death...

don't we have enough rules and regulations in real life, with cameras, compsand whatever following our every move?? is the goal to make cc less fun and more by-the-book place, with dice police checking our every turn? the more rules and regulations the less fun and interesting cc will be. I mean people talk about account sitting like it's doping at the Olympics.

HardAttack wrote:Having clan mate's pw, is it right or wrong ? A clan mate well very probably can play clan games, and non-clan games as well. According to your lines, since non-clan games are going to be dealt in CA, but guess what, say some clan ppl has the pw for emergencies in clan war games and this pw, having it becomes a rule violation when it is non-clan game/s. So, are we going to ask ppl in clans not to play non-clan games ? If we are gonna allow clan players to play non-clan war games, then how are we gonna have their pw to sit to cover emergincies in clan war games ? Since having pw is rule violation it says...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. It's not a violation of the rules (as far as I know) to have someone else's password. There are some actions that are bad enough that they are considered account sitting/sharing abuse. These clan-specific rules are stricter than those, so what may violate these rules doesn't necessarily violate site rules. And if it doesn't violate site rules, there would be no reason for a C&A report. Given this, people can continue to sit for others in non-clan games, the same as they always have. That's all I was saying.

For the clan games, having the password is again not a violation in itself. You just have to follow the new rules or else you risk forfeiting a game or whatever punishments are decided upon by the clan leadership.

However, this does pose interesting questions for folks whose sitters are not part of their clan or not part of the clan world at all.

what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

King A has never said it was illegal to hold another person's password. King A has always said be careful who has it and also that you are responsible for what they do while on it. Moral of the story is choose your sitters wisely.

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ? Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

hey hey my my, rock and roll can never die, there is more to the picture, than meets the eyeplaying games with me ? smells like meeting the death...

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ? Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

NS made those comments back when sharing passwords and jumping in and out of each others accounts at any time of the day was a common tactic of some players. 1 C&A case banned 8+ players from playing any games together and there were some big names amongst that group.

what it boils down to HardAttack is there are some players that believe winning at any cost is acceptable, even if it means sharing their accounts 24/7 to gain an advantage over the other team/clan. then there is the group that believe this is Account Sharing and is against site rules.

the battle between Evil & Good has been raging for years, with the occassional flare up like we have now.

All of the above quotes are from the CoF C&A case, I believe. After that ruling some people had the same question, that HA is asking here, and so a new thread was opened to get some clarification. In this new thread king achilles said:

king achilles wrote:Having someone's password does not automatically or necessarily mean there is an account sharing going on but the temptation that you can freely log in to someone's account even when your not suppose to will always be there. It's what you guys do that could break the account sitting guideline - so be careful not to abuse it.

And this was his last statement on the issue, afaik. It´s still a bit vague, but as I read it: There is no rule against PW sharing itself. The site is aware, that this has become general practice in clans & regular teams. This is ok, as long as the PW is only used to step in in an emergency & take a turn, that is in danger of being missed. It is not ok & can be punished as abuse, when people log into each others accounts at leisure, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and especially in order to gain strategic advantages in games.

I think it would be good to allow some clans to modify this rules, for example al those rules apply by default, unless BOTH clans agree to remove any of the rules. for example clans may agree to remove only rules 3,4 or only rule 2, and keep all other rules.

Some clans do not care a lot about opponent sitting, they play just to have plain fun in their own games and not even care for total result. some players do not even know what is clan about. they just join games that they are invited. so let for those ones to not apply all rules, if both involved sides agrees to that. if only one side does not agree then rulle apply.

Some clans play this game on very high competitive level, where every move is discussed among members of the team, and then sometimes happen account owner cannot be online when final decision about move is done. In that cases, and when playing level is very competitive, strict rules are needed, and strict declared punishment. So we all know what will happen to player who do not notice in chat that he was sitting, what will happen to player who plays maximum own games and make extra sitting, and what will happen to the ones who put absent players into games. Low clans are not guilty that top 2 clans are fingering between each other who did a single (or more often) sitting abuse, is it intentionally or not, is it fair or not, is it rule breaking or not. for them, me included, strict rules on the place are very needed so we can say who cheat and who do not cheat, and we can have proper punishment for the ones who cheat. But some lower clans (I am not generalizing, this may apply also for some top clans like previous argument may also apply for lower clans) just play this game for having basic risk fun with as much as possible simple rules and as low as possible restrictions.

So let them play simple, if they both wish so, and let the ones who take this game more than just a game to have strict rules which will apply in their challenges to avoid any going around the rules.